Posted
by
CowboyNealon Saturday June 28, 2008 @11:38AM
from the no-one-is-safe dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a case of 'all your data are belong to us,' the US government is close to coming to an agreement with the EU that allows it to get private citizen data on EU citizens to 'look for suspicious activity.' So, now we know what step three is: set up a security agency in the US to resell otherwise unavailable data."

We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.

Seriously though, when are we the people going to say enough is enough. We do not need any more surveilance and invasions of our privacy. If we keep on this path then the so called war on terror will be lost not by the efforts of terrorists but by our own governments. Perhaps moving to Zimbabwe is not such a bad idea after all.

We should go out of our way (from an EU perspective) to make the EU just as attractive to travelers from the US as the US is to travelers from the EU.

While I really understand the feeling, I totally disagree with it, as it is the wrong thing to do. Fingerprinting and photographing people at the border is wrong. It should not be done. It doesn't stop terrorists, it may make it a bit less convenient for them to do their thing, but that inconvenience is limited to the crossing of borders. When a would-be terrorist has crossed the border, it's kinda too late already. Fingerprinting is no deterrent after the border has been crossed. It's just stupid to believe otherwise.

There are great systems in place to keep unwanted persons out of the country: normal police work, and exchange of information on criminals between governments. Osama bin Laden would not have much of a chance to enter the USA, unless he manages to get a very well done fake passport.

The EU gives a great example on how it can be done. Traveling within the EU, crossing state borders, is often so easy you don't notice it. If you miss the sign next to the road, that is. There is often not more than that to crossing a national border. And for foreigners entering the EU as visitor, that is generally also easy.

But does that make the EU borders more transparent than US borders? I truly doubt it. People from some nationalities have to apply for visa before entering - that of course includes a more thorough screening. And then of course there exists a black-list of unwanted individuals, those people trying to cross the border will likely be arrested and/or sent back.

And all this does not make the EU more susceptible to terrorism by foreigners - on the contrary. Most if not all serious attacks in the EU were all done by nationals or residents, the greatest threat comes from the inside as always.

While your right in that Fingerprinting people when they enter a country doesn't necessarily stop terrorism, it does go a long way to finding those responsible and possible stopping future acts.

If we had records and proof of all the countries the 9/11 hijackers visited and were able to discern who they traveled with before the events on 9/11, it would have lead a clear trail to other conspirators and perhaps information pertaining to future planned events. I know it is a bit like treating people guilty until proven innocent but that is being done without an accusation of wrong doing so there isn't an immediate harm to a person. Something as basic as knowing who is entering and leaving a country is a right of sovereignty which might actually surpass any or most rights to privacy. That is at least how the supreme court reconciles the searches at the border with the 4th and other constitutional amendments. OF course the constitution would be useless if we didn't have sovereignty, it restricts our government, not others.

If you disagree with the premise, then state it. Labeling it troll only causes me to respond like this which will have others view the the comment for perspective. Then on meta moderation, the troll mod will likely be removed which means you done no damage. Use your brain people, Words are far more powerful then arbitrary moderations.

I understand why you feel the way you do, but I disagree. The Us vs. Them is not Europeans vs. US citizens, it is both sets of citizens against both sets of authorities. Two natural allies (the citizens of both countries) selling each other out to their respective governments is a sad thing. Best thing to do is keep the US as the extremist in as many areas such as this as possible. Don't give them the benefit of justifying it further.

So when is the EU finally going to request fingerprints and private data from US travelers?

Why would they want it? So the US wants to horde lots of personal data that serves no other purpose other than to violate basic human rights, why should any one else want to be as stupid? It will waste money keeping and attempting to process this data to no worthwhile end except the jobs that it will create for the friends of those that pass these stupid laws.

Because if they didn't, it was going to become a situation where passengers and planes couldn't land in the US or even fly through US airspace unless the information was taken and passed on. A visiter from the EU would have to take a flight to a country that does the fingerprinting and then fly into the US. Evidently, there is or was enough people in the EU who saw this as a problem and the rules were changed. For people not going to or through the US, this doesn't effect them so their opinions sort of matt

Eastern Europe, Asia, Western Europe, Africa, would ALL be better off had the USSA (as you so lovingly put it) had left all your affairs alone 1900 to 1970, right?

While some places may of been worse if the US didn't do anything in other places people have suffered gravely because of the US. For instance President Ford and Henry Kissinger [gwu.edu] gave the green light to Indonesia's Suharto to invade East Timer, and supported the invasion with firearms despite a congressional ban. About 200,000 East Timorese were m

But lately, so does the Eurotrash thumbing their nose at the people that actually fought for THEIR freedom and got them their rights to actually have the rights to talk shit to their own and our government.

No Europeans fought for their freedom? Which is it, Charles de Gaulle [wikipedia.org] wasn't European or didn't fight for freedom. The Swing Kids [wikipedia.org] weren't Germans and didn't fight the NAZIs? And there was no Warsaw Uprising [warsawuprising.com].

Democracy on a national level is already very indirect and very vague and *you* trust even farther away EU politicians (who you'll rarely see, get to know, etc) to decide on a treaty that might very radically change the world around you?
What you can eat? What you can do? Where you can go?
Yes, all that kind of stuff.
Exactly because it is a constitution we need a vote.
And if it is too complex it is to be explained *WAY* better before, and not after, accepting it.
It's not a matter of trust. They, who work for us, simply shouldn't push ahead with something that was voted down thrice.
(yes that is what they will do after a slight break because of the Irish no...)

The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well.

Great, so EU politicians living a thousand miles away who don't even speak your language can make decisions like this data sharing, and you have no say in it whatsoever. The way the EU is acting recently, it's becoming less like a democratic organisation, and more like a giant, unaccountable fascist beaurocracy.

The reaction to the Irish vote just sums it up: the people have rejected it, but they're going through with it anyway, because they're in charge and 'they know best'. Most of the arrogant politicans in favour of the constitution haven't even fucking read it. In fact the document is purposefully long and complicated so no-one can understand what it's actually about.

Personally I don't see why the EU can't just be a trade zone, and fuck off all this federal superstate crap. Thank god we're not in the Euro, the last thing we need is these jokers running our economy.

I don't know about this 'Irish vote' of which you speak, but politicians overriding what the people want happens everywhere. We are seeing a surge of such behaviour here in California, at both state and local levels. I think the problem is that once an elected gov't gets just so entrenched, it becomes immune to everything outside of its own power. Electing a different official, even one who starts out honest, is at best a temporary fix and far too small to influence the whole. The powers that be will make s

I suggest you read some history, count the number of wars in europe BEFORE and AFTER the foundation of the EU (the European Coal and Steel Community, 1951). The rest is 'filler'.

Why not count the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the introduction of color TV?
Or the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the assassination of JFK?
Or the number of wars in Europe BEFORE and AFTER the Berlin Wall was built?

Were you actually trying to indicate some sort of proof with your statement?

Actually, when the masses have actually been asked in a referendum, they have generally rejected the various EU constitution/superstate treaties. It's just that this time around with the Lisbon treaty, only one government has so far had the courage to go to its people and ask (well, actually their constitution required it). Despite widespread criticism, other leaders have ratified the treaty againt popular opinion. The masses aren't apathetic, they just aren't being given the choice, in one of the most flagrant violations of democracy in recent history.

And for the avoidance of doubt, we don't get to elect the people with real power in the EU framework, who are apparently behind this particular affront to privacy, either.

Politicians are people too. If ordinary people cannot understand what a treaty or constitution is designed to do, there is something wrong with either the people or the document.

When you vote for someone, you should be voting for someone competent (heh, wonder how often that actually happens), but how do you have the slightest chance of determining their competence and how they will respond to an issue like a treaty if you are completely incapable of understanding the impact of said treaty?

If it's really that complex, the politicians need to break down what it's going to do so that the general public understands it. Note, this would be in a perfect world. More likely is that they'll lie and say what people want to hear in order to get votes...

When you vote for people, and "trust" that they will do the right or competent thing, without understanding the issues yourself, things will go wrong, corrupt politicians will be elected, and the public will get exactly the government they deserve.

Politicians are people too. If ordinary people cannot understand what a treaty or constitution is designed to do, there is something wrong with either the people or the document.

The problem is that this so called "constitution", now renamed "treaty" is more or less a sum of all the inter state treaties that have been agreed upon since the 1950s. And it's now something like 300 pages long and an absolute mess despite some apparent attempts at organising the whole thing.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with a constitution (which is merely the topmost law), or a treaty, it's *all* the treaties at once. No wonder nobody could read it. Only people who have made a career of studying European laws and agreements can navigate through it.

I have the published version commented by the designed committee of the original version (the one that failed to pass the first time, supposedly pretty much the same as the current one) and I have to say that the comments didn't help much.

A proper constitution would be a good start in making the eurofolks feel they're part of the same thing though. I'd vote for a properly written one.

The matter is way too complex to really understand - I don't think it should have had a referendum in the first place. Instead it should have been set up by one EU parliament, and ratified by the next after the elections. Then competent people (the politicians) that can understand the meaning of the document can vote on it, and indirectly the general public votes as well. Not everything is suitable for referendum.

The problem is with the document itself. It should be a real constitution, like the US and many other countries have. A document that delimits Europe's influence over its member states and its people, and clearly states what they can and cannot do, and how they do it. It does not have to be more than a few pages in very simple language that anyone can understand. Then we'll have something meaningful to vote on... and I think it'd good and right that we actually get to vote on it, too.

All Americans suck because all European politicians are just as bad as their American counterparts.

Fuck the EU politicians.

Signed, a citizen of Denmark.

Interesting anecdote: "Junibevægelsen mod EU" (the june movement against EU, a quite small political party) did arrange a weekend trip to Bruxelles a good year ago, where we got to meet with a politician's advisor gave a talk about the market price of corn and agricultural subsidies, and a journalist who spoke (among other things) about telephony and roaming charges (the politicians wanted to offload their phone bill on the citizens; self-serving bastards). And of course some time off to goof off and eat dutch fries (you know, with fish and mayonnaise).

Here's the punchline: what I learned from that trip is that although it is indeed possible to travel to Belgium, and if you prepare in advance you may be able to get the attention of a politician, citizens of pretty much anything other than Belgium have to spend a large amount of time doing so, plus they have to take off a sizable portion of their work week to meet the politicians when they're actually there. In short, regular citizens don't have any real access to a political body that governs non-trivial parts of their lives.

American leaders, EU leaders... all serving at the mandate of vast numbers of people utterly petrified at the thought of ethnic stereotypes lurking around every corner, waiting to launch unspeakable horrors.

Hey, it's your leaders that are agreeing to this shit. Put the blame on their shoulders... they could have said "no".

If you had any idea as to how the EU Officials get into office you wouldnt have posted that half ass comment.

Most European citizens do not even get to vote for country officials or representatives. Most EU Officials or governing body positions are appointed positions, from either voted politicians , or other appointed politicians.

In some EU Countries citizens are not even allowed to vote on most EU policies and laws.

That's a lie, I read it in the paper. Ireland may have said no, but we can't know for sure that's what they REALLY meant. Obviously we need a new vote to see what people really think, and if it turns out to be a no again we should try again. For the sake of democracy. Until we get a yes. Then we can stop with the votes because then the people have decided! Long live our democracies!

I wouldn't say that. The "terrorists" don't really get much out of this (whoever they are) - this is just going to create more identity theft problems for our European neighbors.

It's stupid, yes, and it's invariably going to create a whole host of headaches, and I have no idea why any EU official would possibly think this is a good thing... but this is typical government nonsense, not terrorism.

Voters demand actions from their leaders when things go wrong. They can't just sit there and say "Ok. We can't do anything. Let's grab popcorn and watch the world come to an end". Even if that's the only thing to do. They wouldn't get reelected if they did. The media would rip them apart.

So they do something. It doesn't solve the problem, actually, it pisses off a lot of people, but it appeases the masses who don't think but just demand action. They got actio

and I have no idea why any EU official would possibly think this is a good thing..

deals. its all about closed-door deals. you scratch my back and I'll tattle on your neighbor.

follow the money, as they say. or the motivation. its about 'making an offer you can't refuse. I honestly do believe that. when the US comes knocking, you CANNOT say no. and that's a goddamn SCARY thought, albeit a true one.

why do you think the riaa/mpaa have so much international power? they're a US entity, afterall. but when

The EMP's, who are actually directly elected, have nothing to do with this agreement (and if you'd read the article, you'd see they are more critical of it than anyone else).

It's being negotiated by the Commission with a mandate of the EU Council of Ministers (who will later still have to, and probably will, approve it). The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

First, they issue the EU guideline (read: something you have to make a law in your country), then they come and say they're so awefully sorry that they have to implement that, but the EU forces them.

Who the fuck made that guideline in the first place?

If there is anyone to blame for the EU to have a bad name and getting people irate over its "senseless" guidelines, it's the member countries ruling parties that abuse the EU as a scapegoat for unpopular

The EU Council of Ministers consists of the ministers from all national governments (different ministers depending on the subject being discussed). You know, those ministers who always approve unpopular measures when they're in the Council and then later at home blame the EU for having to implement those same measures in national law.

It's a real shame that Slashdot mods can't go over +5, because this needs to be modded up
to +500 and every person living in the EU needs to understand exactly how this undemocratic
process is working.

The worst thing about the EU Constitution (erm, I mean Lisbon Treaty)? It
enshrines this abuse. The worst thing about friend-of-Holywood Charlie McCreevy [europa.eu]?
NO ONE can directly threaten to vote him out.

The right standard for decisions about handing private data over to the US should be; will the President and the members of congress submit to having the same data about them printed in European papers?

That would never happen as it is against EU privacy laws. And in the EU, the rule of law is pretty much respected. Unfortunately it seems less and less so on the other side of the pond. Especially when "terrorism" enters the argument.

But the president has enough power to pardon and influence their way out of any trouble their information lands them in. They also can spread disinformation campaigns... and in the case of Bush, looks like he can just ignore a problem, even ignore his own illegal actions and other politicians will follow, and the citizens and media will just take it.

Now, if you have a name like some suspect, or look like some other suspect, or if they need a scapegoat, that's another thing. If they can get the profiles in advance, it's much easier to pick the appropriate scapegoats, and they can even be waiting for them on arrival. Nothing personal, but the government needs to be looking like it's doing something.

Of course, you'd know if you were guilty of being an reasonable scapegoat, right?

I've already got to fill in some homeland security forms just to be let off the plane. It is a very intimidating environment for a visitor, and I am going to be concerned that MI5 is going to casually pass my name as a possible subversive to them, and suddenly I'm classed as a threat.

"I've been critical of the US on Internet forums; is this going to give me hassle getting in when I visit next month?"

Yes, and you'll be less likely to criticize the government the next time, which I suspect is the chief purpose of such legislation. You see, without the ever present specter of communism to protect up from, the US needed something else to scare us with. Step forward Al-Qaeda and the IslamoFascist bogyman.

"A watched population is a compliant one", Adam Suttler.. If he didn't say it, he thought it..:)

The difference is that the spectre of Communism generally aided us in preserving our freedoms (at least once we got past the McCarthy scare), by providing a well-defined example of what we DON'T want to be like.

The current nebulous "terrorism" bogeyman is not sufficiently defined to use as a bad example. Apparently this means we need to make our own bad example, so we know exactly what to look for should such a bogeyman actually appear.

Meh. You could be saying all sorts of good things about the US and they'd hassle you. If the list of random evil people's names doesn't get you, the poor, uneducated morons on a power trip that run airport security will (imagine Heathrow, only worse). That's just the nature of travelling to (and within?) the USA these days, and likely will remain so until some future president declares victory on terror and gets around to the next big issue (like, say, fixing their economy).

They generally seem to [wired.com] not like it [cato.org]. But ten to one if someone consistently delivered this kind of retribution against privacy-violating politicians, they'd find themselves in jail, because that's one of those things they'll make sure is written into the law: they can do it, but you can't. Since we're all "working together to end terrorism" now, anybody actively opposing such good-willed spying will be classified as a terrorist and silenced in one way or another.

I really don't have a problem with a country messing with its citizens and even its geographical neighbors -- I think that's well within every countries right even if I don't like the specifics of what they are up to (China for eg.). However, this apparent effort my the American government to rule increasingly larger parts of the words his really disheartening. How about they stick to spying on their own citizens, that's much more fair (since it is a democratic nation)

Well, this goes hand in hand with another law proposed in the EU. If it passes all blogs of EU citizens will have to be registered with the government. So now the US can get private data on EU citizens and perhaps in return the EU can get a list of those criminal Europeans that have unregistered blogs on US servers.

A quote from the MEP that was responsible for the proposal:

I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.

I may have to flee to China to keep some of my individual rights. Lovely.

I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.

I RTFA. The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities. Rather the article informs readers that the two bodies of government are working towards a common set of privacy standards and safeguards that should be implemented if said bodies of government decided to one day share private information.

You say that as though you doubt the inevitability of it. My bet is that they're already doing this in a clandestine way and are seeking to retroactively legitimize i

I don't presume to know the "evitability" of it. I was simply toning down the sensationalism of the headline. Of course this will make it easier in the future for the EU to transfer information to the US and concerned EU citizens should be worried over this fact. But to state that the EU has decided to hand over private information and that some sort of agreement has been reached to permit this is misleading.

The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities.

Actually,

"The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information â" like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits â" about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean."

Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.

"The negotiators are trying to agree on minimum standards to protect privacy rights, such as limiting access to the information to âoeauthorized individuals with an identified purposeâ for looking at it. If a governmentâ(TM)s policies are âoeeffectiveâ in meeting all standards, any transfer of personal data to that government would be presumed lawful."

Read further down and you will see this "agreement" is discussing privacy safeguards and standards that would make it lawful for the EU to transfer information to the US. This is why the article is titled "US and Europe Near Accord on Privacy", not EU to transfer private information to the US.

Does anyone expect anything other than the EU capitulating to American demands?I only ask because I can't see that America will ever agree to abide by European Union privacy standards.

The ultimate question is can the EU (legally or politically) sign away their citizens rights to privacy through a treaty?

"The Times does not say that the EU is going to hand over private information to US authorities"

My understanding of it is: that the US is going to monitor all activity on it's residents and will hand such information over to the US, without warrant or evidence of criminal or 'terrorist' activity. And we can't even sue you guys if you lose the data. Given the lack of controls over governmental abuse in your country, shouldn't we be monitoring you. And just because you guys want to turn this place into the

I would like to know which country isn't planning to go down that route so I can sell all my stuff and move out of the way.

Having worked as a contractor for other European Institutions, I know absolutely nothing gets in the way of the Commission once it decided something. After all, it's not like they have to be re-elected or anything.

I ain't a EU citizen, I'm a resident of the United Kingdom and a loyal subject of her Mag, don't need anyone monitoring me for subversive activity. I can remember when they told us the EEC was about a Common economic Market and was never about some United States of Europe. But I guess that was another heap of baloney, like the promise that they'll protect out privacy. Remember these are the same people that bugged the UN, or are we supposed to not remember that.

I'm a resident of the United Kingdom and a loyal subject of her Mag, don't need anyone monitoring me for subversive activity.

so, you never leave home and avoid ALL the closed circuit TV cameras that the UK is so good at?

if anything, people in the UK are far far worse off then anything the US can and will do. when I get depressed about how bad things are in the US, at least I can say I don't live in the UK - aka, the nanny state!

your society has crashed and the cameras are just insult added to injury. our

I would like to know which country isn't planning to go down that route so I can sell all my stuff and move out of the way.

dream on. power is addictive. which government does NOT enjoy power?

the terrorists have ruined us, truly. what a shame. I'm old enough to remember when privacy EXISTED. pity my future kids won't have a shred of info (other than what they read in history books) about what true individual dignity and privacy is all about.

in electronic mail (back at DEC in the 80's and early 90's). I regularly traveled to the UK and europe to teach my 1week course there. the same course was given in the US every 6 weeks or so.

one thing that I learned when I was attending the 'train the trainer' for this course was that euro privacy standards are (well, USED TO BE) very strict. in the course, we used to talk about PMF (personnel master files) and how LITTLE could be shared even in the same company (DEC) but between different countries. email for things like 'all-in-1 mail' (wow, anyone remember that?) used to depend on having access to personnel info (more or less) and yet we taught that very little could be shared between countries, mostly just the first and last name and country they were in and that's about it!

Does this mean that everyone in the European Union is a potential opponent of the USA, moms apple pie and all things goodness and niceness. If so, whatever would turn them against the worlds greatest democracy. I mean it's the place everyone wants to go to, isn't it, apart from me that is..:)

As a Eurpoean (who used to believe in the "American Dream"), I'm thoroughly sick of the way the US behaves, and I'm disgusted that none of our leaders have the nerve to tell the regime to get lost. The EU should cease all co-operation with the USA until the USA starts behaving like a free country. Guantanamo alone is such a blot that the EU should have imposed trade sanctions over it (like we did to apartheid South-Africa).

We've already got them in the UK - I saw a poster for Oreos the other day.

.

There was a fine sketch on 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' many years ago, which in this context sums it up: Rowan Atkinson was talking at the Tory Party Conference about Asian immigration, and the punchline was -

I like curry, but we've got the recipie now, OK?

Substitute Oreos for curry in the above, and you've got my feelings on US impositions on our culture.